97 réponses à ce sujet

[grey_wind]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

designed.
In fact, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to believe that Liara (the new Shadow Broker) and or The Illusive Man had designed a theoretical weapon that would exploit the Citadel's role as a relay hub to send out an attack/control signal targeted at the Reapers throughout the relay network

Why? It's news to me that intelligence analysts and super weapon engineers (e.g. nuclear physicists) have much of a skill overlap.

 
Most intelligence analysts don't have the resources to hire a 1000 weapon engineers apiece either. 

[roryw2203]

The Crucible in and of itself was kind of a crappy plot device. If the story took place over a year or a couple of years (which Javik implies happened with his cycle). Then it would've been feasible that the current races (which had access to all the prothean data on the reapers) could create some kind of way to fight back more conventionally.

[chris2365]

iakus wrote...

If there were really 20,000 Sovereign class Reapers and Enkindlers-know how many destroyers running around, the game should have been lost with the opening credits. They could have sent a thousand capital ships to face each race and have plenty of reserves left over. Nothing could have stopped them or even slowed them down.

It seems the Reapers care more about harvesting planets than fighting armies. Despite their immense power, the writers seem to have overcame this by putting the Reapers priorities in this cycle's favor. Obviously they probably could've charged the Citadel and taken care of it from there, but then we wouldn't even have a game.

[Gervaise]

The problem with a conventional victory is not so much the strength of the Reaper forces, the resources available to you or lack of them but the fact that the Reapers main weapon is indoctrination. What is incredible is that the Crucible was kept a secret from them this Cycle until TIM told them about it, given that Shepard doesn't seem too fussy about who they let into their so called top secret war room and the number of people/aliens sent off to work on the project.

What I found disappointing was the Readiness factor implied that conventional victory was possible. I never did MP but when it got to 50% readiness and the comment that our chances of success were about even, I thought we were about to embark on the sort of battle you have in DAO, where you fight you way across the city calling upon whichever allies you feel are most appropriate to assist you. This would have had you utilising war assets in much the same way as we are asked to decide upon who to do a particular task in ME2. Choose right and your chances of success go up, choose wrong and they go down. Then you get to the point where you can utilise the big gun on, say, Harbinger as the leader of the Reapers and defeating him causes a chain reaction across their forces.

But as it turned out, the only relevance of the war assets was to determine how much collateral damage was caused by the Crucible and how many choices were available to you, which was a bit of a let down.

[Orikon]

I always found it strange how throughout the millions of cycles they went through,the Reaper Fleet seems to have an unlimited amount of ships.Always,in every cycle.Hell,in this cycle alone dozens of Reaper Ships have been destroyed (Destroyers included),and the war with Protheans lasted for centuries.
Every cycle ends with a "birth" of ONE new Sovereign-class reaper ships,and presumably a few Destroyers.
So where do all the reaper ships come from?Every cycle (if they decide to fight back) ultimately destroy more Reapers then there are created at the end of the cycle.

OT:Conventional Victory would have been possible if the Battle for Earth was won,since that was where the main part of the Reaper Fleet was located.The rest of the Reapers throughout the galaxy would have been more-or-less easy to deal with.That's just my opinion though.

[AlexMBrennan]

Every cycle ends with a "birth" of ONE new Sovereign-class reaper ships,and presumably a few Destroyers.

That may have been how the Reapers operated when not taking casualties, but unless you assume that the Reapers haven't figured out animal husbandry they have other ways of replenishing their numbers (e.g. creating massive breeding farms for humans analogous to chicken battery farms)

OT:Conventional Victory would have been possible if the Battle for Earth was won

Yes, if we could magically win unwinnable battles then we could also win an unwinnable war. Brilliant deduction.
Remember, the "Battle for Earth" was "Hope that sacrificing all our biggest ships will distract the Reapers from the Crucible long enough to activate it" - at no point was destroying the Reaper fleet ever mentioned as a possible outcome.

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 20 janvier 2014 - 11:28 .

[Iakus]

chris2365 wrote...

iakus wrote...

If there were really 20,000 Sovereign class Reapers and Enkindlers-know how many destroyers running around, the game should have been lost with the opening credits. They could have sent a thousand capital ships to face each race and have plenty of reserves left over. Nothing could have stopped them or even slowed them down.

It seems the Reapers care more about harvesting planets than fighting armies. Despite their immense power, the writers seem to have overcame this by putting the Reapers priorities in this cycle's favor. Obviously they probably could've charged the Citadel and taken care of it from there, but then we wouldn't even have a game.

Yeah, but to get to the planets you gotta fight the armies.  

And with 20,000 Soveriegn class reapers and likely 100,000 or more destroyers, the Reapers could have taken the Citadel, pounded every fleet in the galaxy to scrap at once, and get to harvesting with no one able to stop them.

The writers overcame this power discrepency by making the Reapers freaking incompetant

Making the Repers a billion year old Reaper...what were the writers tinking???

[NeonFlux117]

The Reapers cannot be beaten conventionally. Even the ME3 version of Reapers (Thanix cannons piercing reaper barriers... wat!!!). But yeah. Even ME3 Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally. Too many. Too powerful.

There was always going to be a "crucible" device or an "I win button". I do not dislike that idea. The execution of it in ME3 was awful.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Conventional victory would have had to have been established back in ME2, then again the same could probably be said for a super weapon victory.

[NeonFlux117]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

Conventional victory would have had to have been established back in ME2, then again the same could probably be said for a super weapon victory.

Yes. And the exact oposite was established back in ME1 and re-established in ME2.

Sovereign was not even close to being defeated until it's barriers were LOWERED because Shep pwnd Saren.

Then in the IFF relay mission in ME2, EDI reiterates that Reaper barriers cannot be pierced by dreadnought fire-Even Thanix cannons.


Now the Reapers in ME3 break all established lore of the Reapers, but really most ME3 breaks or bends established lore of Mass Effect. Anyway's even the Reapers in ME3 can't be defeated conventionally. Too many.

[dorktainian]

NeonFlux117 wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

Conventional victory would have had to have been established back in ME2, then again the same could probably be said for a super weapon victory.

Yes. And the exact oposite was established back in ME1 and re-established in ME2.

Sovereign was not even close to being defeated until it's barriers were LOWERED because Shep pwnd Saren.

Then in the IFF relay mission in ME2, EDI reiterates that Reaper barriers cannot be pierced by dreadnought fire-Even Thanix cannons.


Now the Reapers in ME3 break all established lore of the Reapers, but really most ME3 breaks or bends established lore of Mass Effect. Anyway's even the Reapers in ME3 can't be defeated conventionally. Too many.

maybe because they're not reapers?....      

The answer to the conventional victory scenario really does lie in whether or not shepard finally understands the mistakes the protheans made when the reapers wiped them out. 

The answers are there....Buried in the data.

[Han Shot First]

The main problem with a conventional victory (conventional as in not using a superweapon) is that it doesn't give Shepard anything to do in the end game. Shepard then becomes a spectator in the final game as some other character, like Hackett or Primarch Victus, wins the decisive battle of the Reaper War. If you are going to have the protagonist be the one to bring the Reaper War to a close, you have to introduce some form of superweapon to the plot.

There is nothing wrong with having a superweapon as a plot device either. The problem with ME3 wasn't that a superweapon was introduced to the plot, its that it was poorly thought out and executed by the writers.

[AlanC9]

This is why the Kilrathi War in Wing Commander 3 ends with Blair dropping the T-Bomb. Of course the Behemoth is a superweapon too, but it isn't controlled by Blair so it's obvious that weapon's not going to work out.

Modifié par AlanC9, 21 janvier 2014 - 07:23 .

[FlyingSquirrel]

fearthedragonof666 wrote...

I also understand what you mean. Again, they aren't perfect, and the delivery wasn't great, but the IDEA of the endings is great. But I didn't mean to start another ending thread. I was more focused on this whole "beating them without the Crucible" idea that's going around.

I agree, and I've also made this argument before - the size of the Reaper fleet and the fact that they've been doing this for a billion years precludes almost any conventional solution, if only because previous cycles would have inevitably tried it and failed. It would be surprising if previous cycles *hadn't* ever formed a galactic coalition, or built something like Thanix or Cain missiles, or whatever. A completely out-of-left-field solution is pretty much the only thing left.

The only other viable solutions I could see would be (a) reprogramming the Crucible to do something other than the three options presented (like removing the Catalyst's control of the Reapers without Shepard getting absorbed in the process, for example), or ( Shepard convincing the Catalyst that it's wrong about the need for the cycles. Neither of those would really be a conventional victory either.

[Reorte]

Han Shot First wrote...

The main problem with a conventional victory (conventional as in not using a superweapon) is that it doesn't give Shepard anything to do in the end game. Shepard then becomes a spectator in the final game as some other character, like Hackett or Primarch Victus, wins the decisive battle of the Reaper War. If you are going to have the protagonist be the one to bring the Reaper War to a close, you have to introduce some form of superweapon to the plot.

There is nothing wrong with having a superweapon as a plot device either. The problem with ME3 wasn't that a superweapon was introduced to the plot, its that it was poorly thought out and executed by the writers.

There IS still a lot wrong with having a superweapon as such a plot device. It's very rarely a convincing solution (particularly when you've got a history of many failed attempts at defeating the forces) and almost always comes across as too convenient. If your story relies on one in order to give your protagonist something meaningful to do to resolve the plot then you've got a bad story full stop. The superweapon is trying to patch flaws with further flaws.

[Reorte]

FlyingSquirrel wrote...

fearthedragonof666 wrote...

I also understand what you mean. Again, they aren't perfect, and the delivery wasn't great, but the IDEA of the endings is great. But I didn't mean to start another ending thread. I was more focused on this whole "beating them without the Crucible" idea that's going around.

I agree, and I've also made this argument before - the size of the Reaper fleet and the fact that they've been doing this for a billion years precludes almost any conventional solution, if only because previous cycles would have inevitably tried it and failed. It would be surprising if previous cycles *hadn't* ever formed a galactic coalition, or built something like Thanix or Cain missiles, or whatever. A completely out-of-left-field solution is pretty much the only thing left.

The only other viable solutions I could see would be (a) reprogramming the Crucible to do something other than the three options presented (like removing the Catalyst's control of the Reapers without Shepard getting absorbed in the process, for example), or ( Shepard convincing the Catalyst that it's wrong about the need for the cycles. Neither of those would really be a conventional victory either.

Even there if there's a weakness that's exploitable by the Catalyst it's pushing credibility to claim that no previous cycle has managed to find it and use it. The Reapers have simply been around for too long for anything much at all to be convincing. The Crucible plans shouldn't possibly be able to survive for more than one cycle. I can just about accept that the Protheans managed to muck something up for the Reapers. They may have had little slips like that before. Then throw in Sovereign being destroyed thus buying us what should be a good deal of time, and information available from the wreck of Sovereign - I might just be able to swallow that combination as the unique advantage this cycle had. However it would rationally put the actual Reaper invasion quite a long time in the future, thus giving Shepard no part to play in the resolution, so whilst it might make more sense it doesn't make for a tied up story.

[jamesp81]

fearthedragonof666 wrote...

I'd like to add that this is NOT meant to spiral into another ending thread, although I do share my opinion.

Now, let's just keep this math simple.

The Leviathan of Dis is a Reaper corpse dated at approx. 1 BILLION years old. Now, the Reapers arrive about every 50,000 years. Every time they purge the Galaxy, they create a new Capital Ship, and possibly multiple Destroyers. Now to get a general estimate , we just divide:

1,000,000,000/50,000= 20,000.

We can get the most basic, rough estimate to be around TWENTY THOUSAND REAPER CAPITAL SHIPS. Now, it takes 4 Dreadnoughts to take down a Capital ship, assuming the Reaper doesn't one-shot all 4 before they can even fire. There are only maybe 122 or so Dreadnoughts as a general estimate, not including Quarian or Batarian ships, and with estimating the Geth to have about 37. This is as of 2185. It goes without saying that there are not even remotely enough of them. Keep in mind, our 20,000 estimate does NOT include all the Destroyers that are among the Reaper fleet, although while capable of one-shotting any alien ship, they are much easier to neutralize, although this still requires a hell of a lot of work.

Also, from what I remember hearing from Bioware, this cycle is unique in how it has been able to kill Reapers, this is NOT something that has been done all too much in past cycles. Keep in mind, several cycles would have, based on the math above, been purged by a significantly smaller amount of Reapers compared to the current cycle.

So, I guess I've made my case as to why all this "We should be able to beat them conventionally if we have 5000 war assets" talk is a bunch of bull.

The funny thing is that the Citadel races had at their disposal tools to create weapons that could easily one shot Reaper capital ships.

According to the codex, a Sovereign-class Reaper starts to lose kinetic barriers when under the sustained fire of four dreadnoughts.  The Turians had their DNs attack by moving behind the Reapers at FTL speeds and firing on them before they could turn to engage.  This succeeded in destroying several Reapers.  An Alliance dreadnought's main gun hits with a yield of 38 kilotons, I'm sure there is some variation among other races' dreadnoughts on their exact power.  We'll go with 40 kilotons because it's a nice round number.

From the Codex, we can see that ships that can hit with a combined force of 160 kilotons can take out a Reaper.  Seems like a lot, right?

The Citadel species use anti-matter as starship fuel.  One pound of which will create an explosion of 19.5 megatons, or, 19,500 kilotons.  Such a weapon wouldn't just destroy a Reaper.  It would probably be gross overkill that would more or less vaporize it.

Literally, the fuel tanks of Citadel starships would've made better weapons than their actual weapons.  Delivery of antimatter is, admittedly, somewhat problematic but not overly insurmountable either.  The obvious choice would be to either 1) encase your one pound of anti-matter in a mass accelerator round and fire it like normal or 2) use anti-matter warheads instead of eezo warheads on disruptor torpedos.  Both solutions offer the ability to succesfully deliver at least a few warheads on target and can be used with existing weapons systems (this avoids the need to refit your warships in the middle of a war).

Such a weapon would make it fairly straight forward for a simple fighter squadron to destroy a Reaper, much less an actual warship.

[Reorte]

jamesp81 wrote...


From the Codex, we can see that ships that can hit with a combined force of 160 kilotons can take out a Reaper.  Seems like a lot, right?

The Citadel species use anti-matter as starship fuel.  One pound of which will create an explosion of 19.5 megatons, or, 19,500 kilotons.  Such a weapon wouldn't just destroy a Reaper.  It would probably be gross overkill that would more or less vaporize it.

Which leaves us with the obvious question as to why there aren't anti-matter weapons, and why no previous cycle has used them (and why the Reapers wouldn't use them to wipe out any attacking ships first).

[NeonFlux117]

The Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally.

Sovereign was not beaten conventionally. Shepard got lucky and Sovereign got stupid and over confident in his minion Saren. Simple as that.

Now.... ME3 Reapers are a bit of an enigma. But really, isn't the entire game.

Don't think about things to hard in ME3.

Just go with the flow.

[AlanC9]

Reorte wrote...
There IS still a lot wrong with having a superweapon as such a plot device. It's very rarely a convincing solution (particularly when you've got a history of many failed attempts at defeating the forces) and almost always comes across as too convenient. If your story relies on one in order to give your protagonist something meaningful to do to resolve the plot then you've got a bad story full stop. The superweapon is trying to patch flaws with further flaws.

I'd find this a lot more convincing if superweapon plots were rarer. Unless you're invoking Sturgeon's Law.

Modifié par AlanC9, 21 janvier 2014 - 08:29 .

[jamesp81]

Reorte wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...


From the Codex, we can see that ships that can hit with a combined force of 160 kilotons can take out a Reaper.  Seems like a lot, right?

The Citadel species use anti-matter as starship fuel.  One pound of which will create an explosion of 19.5 megatons, or, 19,500 kilotons.  Such a weapon wouldn't just destroy a Reaper.  It would probably be gross overkill that would more or less vaporize it.

Which leaves us with the obvious question as to why there aren't anti-matter weapons, and why no previous cycle has used them (and why the Reapers wouldn't use them to wipe out any attacking ships first).

I think the answer is obvious: the writers didn't think about it all that much.

To use antimatter weaponry you have to be able to 1) product the antimatter, 2) contain the anti-matter, and 3) deliver it to target.  The Codex flat out states that the Citadel races already do 1 and 2 (antimatter is used as fuel).  3 wouldn't be that hard to to come by since delivery systems already exist.  Modification of such systems, while not a trivial task, is not terribly difficult either (certainly it wouldn't be as difficult as building a space magic colored beam machine).

[dreamgazer]

NeonFlux117 wrote...

The Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally.

Sovereign was not beaten conventionally. Shepard got lucky and Sovereign got stupid and over confident in his minion Saren. Simple as that.

Now.... ME3 Reapers are a bit of an enigma. But really, isn't the entire game.

Don't think about things to hard in ME3.

Just go with the flow.

Sounds like people shouldn't be thinking about things too hard across the entire trilogy. 

A lot of it can be classified as enigmatic bullshit designed to move the player along. 

[AlanC9]

jamesp81 wrote...
To use antimatter weaponry you have to be able to 1) product the antimatter, 2) contain the anti-matter, and 3) deliver it to target.  The Codex flat out states that the Citadel races already do 1 and 2 (antimatter is used as fuel).  3 wouldn't be that hard to to come by since delivery systems already exist.  Modification of such systems, while not a trivial task, is not terribly difficult either (certainly it wouldn't be as difficult as building a space magic colored beam machine).

There are a lot of ideas like this floating around. The problem with techs that can blow up any ship  regardless of defenses is that if these techs work, space battleships don't work and you ought to organize your fleet around drones, fighters, missile boats, etc. Which is a problem when your series is about space battleships.

Modifié par AlanC9, 21 janvier 2014 - 08:37 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

Reorte wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...


From the Codex, we can see that ships that can hit with a combined force of 160 kilotons can take out a Reaper.  Seems like a lot, right?

The Citadel species use anti-matter as starship fuel.  One pound of which will create an explosion of 19.5 megatons, or, 19,500 kilotons.  Such a weapon wouldn't just destroy a Reaper.  It would probably be gross overkill that would more or less vaporize it.

Which leaves us with the obvious question as to why there aren't anti-matter weapons, and why no previous cycle has used them (and why the Reapers wouldn't use them to wipe out any attacking ships first).

Well if we stick to the ME1 convention that the Reapers arrive every 50k years and the difference in technological advancement between cycles doesn't vary too much, one factor could be that the current cycle is at least 2000 years late (given that the Rachni wars were instagated by Sovereign when it realized something was wrong). Throw in the notion that anti-matter technology is relatively new and you have a handwavy reason.

As to why there aren't any such weapons currently in existance that might be able to be explained by introducing that such weapons are just being developed, perhaps prompting Sovereign to mount a risky assault. The past cycles may not have had such weapons because the Reapers offed them before they could develope them or some other reason.

It requires lots of handwaving to make a conventional victory work, but the same problems that apply to such a Reaper defeat also applies to basically any other method used to beat the Reapers. Mainly the one that if such a super weapon existed why did no one else use it?

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 21 janvier 2014 - 09:36 .

[xAmilli0n]

I've never been convinced conventional victory was possible. I remembering running the numbers back like a year ago in a old thread, and it never added up. That and looking how Sovereign was only defeated because of Shepard's intervention and I just can't see it happening.